In December 2022, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted the landmark Resolution 2664 establishing a default ‘humanitarian exemption’ across all current and future UN sanctions regimes. UNSC Resolution 2664 set a new standard in protecting principled humanitarian action from the unintended consequences of UN asset freeze measures. Several Member States, especially donor countries, have incorporated UNSC Resolution 2664 into their national laws enforcing UN sanctions. In addition, most jurisdictions implementing unilateral sanctions have gone beyond their obligations under the resolution by voluntarily extending humanitarian exemptions to their unilateral asset freeze measures.
However, from Afghanistan and OPT, to Yemen, Syria and the Sahel, counterterrorism and sanctions-related measures (CT/S) continue to hinder humanitarian operations. Where humanitarian exemptions are not in place, all actors involved in humanitarian action—donors, aid organizations, banks and suppliers—are exposed to the risk of violating asset freeze measures and a range of CT and anti-money laundering laws and regulations when transferring resources necessary for routine operations.
This result is an inhibiting effect that can have negative consequences for humanitarian responses. In some cases, banks have refused to transfer funds or imposed long delays and cumbersome information requests. Some donors have declined to fund certain humanitarian activities in areas where sanctioned actors are active, restricted the type of aid grantees can provide, refused to directly fund local organizations or imposed burdensome reporting and due diligence requirements. Host Governments have also used CT/S to justify intimidating humanitarian staff, suspending NGO operations, designating no-go areas, blocking aid convoys, or prohibiting engagement with certain armed groups. Anticipating such restrictions, humanitarian organizations have in some instances self-censored when designing or implementing programmes.
These, however, are not the only measures restricting humanitarians. Bureaucratic and Administrative Impediments (BAI) are practices and policies which limit the ability of humanitarian organizations to reach people in need in a timely and unfettered manner. BAI have long been part of the Access Monitoring and Reporting Framework, and in recent years the humanitarian community has strengthened its ability to identify and address these impediments.
CT/S and other restrictive measures can sometimes challenge humanitarian organizations’ ability to provide efficient and impartial assistance, for the following reasons:
- Some restrictive measures–including export and sectoral restrictions, anti-terrorism financing laws, anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism regulations, as well as administrative decisions and regulations by host Governments–lack standing humanitarian exemptions and hinder humanitarian operations.
- CT/S and other restrictive measures still demand important due diligence, leading to compliance costs and delays. Profit and reputational concerns affect private sector decisions. Consequently, some banks and companies continue to refuse business in high-risk contexts.
- Humanitarian exemptions are yet to translate into whole-of-Government policies of increased risk tolerance for principled humanitarian assistance. For example, in several jurisdictions, financial regulation agencies have not amended their internal policies and regulations to reflect humanitarian exemptions. Donors also continue to impose restrictions on some activities and programmes that are covered under applicable exemptions.
The Security Council, Governments and regional organizations should build on the significant progress made towards broadly implementing humanitarian exemptions and extend such exemptions to other restrictive measures, such as counterterrorism legislations or sectoral and export restrictions. They should continue to promote consistent, whole-of-Government standards, policies and practices that support risk tolerance for impartial humanitarian action.
BAI reporting to date has, however, predominantly focused on the impact of BAI on humanitarian agencies—through tracking indicators such as number of visas denied or number of project agreements delayed—rather than on the consequences of BAI for people’s access to services and assistance, according to according to the International Council for Voluntary Agencies.
Overall, humanitarians cannot address crises alone: diplomatic and political solutions are necessary to address the root causes of conflict. In 2018, diplomatic and political actors came together to unanimously adopt UN Security Council Resolution 2417, which directly links hunger with conflict, in an effort to protect food systems and humanitarian access. The resolution condemns starvation as a weapon of war and the unlawful denial of humanitarian aid to civilians. The resolution calls for adherence to IHL, urging parties to conflict to protect civilians, safeguard essential resources, ensure unimpeded humanitarian access and protect infrastructure critical to food systems and aid delivery. Resolutions, however, are not enough without the practical actions to safeguard humanitarian routes and without parties to a conflict meeting their obligations under IHL.